Legal representation in disciplinary inquiry denied natural justice where a legally trained presenting officer faced an unrepresented employee.

In a departmental inquiry under Rule 7(5) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, discretion to allow legal representation had to be exercised fairly and consistently with natural justice. Where the charges could lead to dismissal and the presenting officer was legally trained, refusing counsel to an employee with no legal background was held to deny a real and reasonable opportunity of defence. The refusal was therefore invalid, and the employee was entitled to have the earlier witnesses made available for cross-examination through a lawyer in the resumed inquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a departmental inquiry governed by Rule 7(5) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, the delinquent employee was entitled to the assistance of a legal practitioner where the charges could lead to dismissal and the presenting officer was legally trained.

Analysis: Rule 7(5) vested a discretion in the inquiry authority to permit representation by counsel where the charges were likely to result in dismissal. The discretion had to be exercised fairly and in accordance with natural justice. The relevant considerations included the seriousness of the charge, the likelihood of prejudice, and whether the employee was pitted against a presenting officer with legal attainments. In the facts of the case, refusal of legal assistance, when the presenting officer was legally experienced and the appellant had no legal background, was held to have deprived the appellant of a real and reasonable opportunity of defence. To avoid prejudice already caused, the witnesses examined earlier were to be made available for further cross-examination by the appellant's lawyer.

Conclusion: The refusal to permit legal representation was invalid and amounted to denial of natural justice. The appellant was entitled to cross-examine the specified witnesses through a lawyer in the resumed inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a disciplinary rule permits legal representation by discretion, that discretion must be exercised to ensure a fair opportunity of defence, and refusal may be unlawful if it results in denial of natural justice, especially when the delinquent is faced by a legally trained presenting officer.

---